SHRIKANT BHAGWAN WAGHMARE,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A), noting that the assessee did not appear to pursue the appeal. The order of the CIT(A) was upheld.
What were the facts?
The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order concerning the taxability of capital gains on the sale of agricultural land. The Assessing Officer had made an addition for capital gains, which the assessee claimed as exempt. The CIT(A) granted partial relief and remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer.
What were the issues?
The primary issues were the taxability of capital gains on the sale of agricultural land and the year in which such gains should be taxed.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, PUNE
Before: SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO & SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM
आदेश / ORDER
PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM :
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Pune-5, Pune, dated 12-08-2016 for the assessment year 2011-12.
2 ITA No.2909/PUN/2016 A.Y. 2011-12
The appeal was called twice, none appeared to represent the assessee. A perusal of the file shows that notice of the appeal for today was sent to the assessee through RPAD on 10-10-2019. The notice was duly served on the assessee as is evident from the acknowledgement card available on record. Despite service of notice, neither the assessee nor any authorized representative of the assessee has appeared in the Court. Even there is no request from the assessee seeking adjournment. In the past, two occasions i.e. 14-08-2019 and 03-10-2019, none appeared to represent the assessee. It seems that the assessee is not keen to pursue his appeal. Under such circumstances, we deem it appropriate to take up the appeal for hearing with the assistance of ld. DR and the material available on record.
The assessee in appeal has raised solitary issue of taxability of capital gains arising on purported sale of agricultural land. The other connected issue raised in the appeal is the year of taxability of capital gains on sale of aforesaid land.
Shri Sreevisakh R.K. representing the Department vehemently defended the impugned order and prayed for dismissing the appeal of assessee. The ld. DR submitted that the Assessing Officer had made addition of Rs.2,20,85,000/- on account of capital gains arising from sale of land. The assessee had sold the land for consideration of Rs.4,41,70,000/- and has earned capital gain of Rs.2,20,85,000/-. The assessee claimed the LTCG as exempt u/s 2(14) of the Act. The Assessing Officer has given categoric finding that the assessee is not an agriculturist and the land was not purchased for agricultural purposes. The ld. DR
3 ITA No.2909/PUN/2016 A.Y. 2011-12
further pointed that the CIT(A) has considered the submissions of assessee in appellate proceedings and has thereafter given detailed finding. The CIT(A) has granted part relief to the assessee and has remitted the issue back to the file of Assessing Officer for re-working capital gains.
We have heard the submissions made by ld. DR and have perused the orders of authorities below. We have not come across any material contrary to the findings of CIT(A). Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the findings of First Appellate Authority. The impugned order is thus, upheld and the appeal of assessee is dismissed.
In the result, the appeal by assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in open Court on Wednesday the 20th day of November, 2019.
Sd/- Sd/- (D.Karunakara Rao) (Vikas Awasthy) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ऩुणे / Pune; ददनाांक / Dated : 20th November, 2019 GCVSR आदेश की प्रनिलऱपप अग्रेपषि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अऩीऱाथी / The Appellant. 1. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent. 2. आयकर आयुक्त (अऩीऱ) / The CIT(A), Pune-5, Pune. 3. The Pr.CIT, Pune-4, Pune. 4. ववभागीय प्रतततनधध, आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, “ए” बेंच, 5. ऩुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. गार्ड फ़ाइऱ / Guard File. 6. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, सत्यावऩत प्रतत //True Copy// वररष्ठ तनजी सधचव / Sr. Private Secretary आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण ,ऩुणे/ ITAT, Pune
More judgments on Section 2(14)
- Karan Dilipkumar Patel L/H of Late… vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Vapi…ITA 353/SRT/2024[2011-12]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2011-12
- Jagdishbhai Vasharambhai Italiya, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-3(1)(1), AhmedabadITA 150/AHD/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Ishvarbhai Bhagabhai Patel, Surat vs The ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), SuratITA 6/SRT/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Malini Satish Parekh, Surat vs ITO, Ward 2(3), SuratITA 900/SRT/2024[2013-14]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
- Lakhmanbhai Maru, Vadodara vs ITO, Ward 1(2)(1), Vadodara, Aayakar…ITA 1046/AHD/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2024-25
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Mahaveer Ispat Traders vs. Principal Commissioner Dgst Delhi Department Of Trade And Taxes Gnctd & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026